• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thoughts re: Gen. Flynn's sentencing documents

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bob Mueller submitted his remarks regarding Gen. Flynn's sentencing (addendum). I gotta say, it was a joy to read that document, for it's clear and dictionally precise prose whereof the authors communicate all they could and intend to, what they wrote means all of what it says, yet not more and not less. Clearly politicians didn't write the document, or at least not its unredacted parts. That it's written thus makes it so much easier to analyze and comprehend because despite the redactions, one knows the limits of what one can legitimately infer from what's written.

Among my observations are the following:
  • Mueller seems keener on the nature and extent of Russia's actions to influence in the US political process and the nature and extent of influence Russia may potentially exert, and not as concerned with incarcerating folks. is clear from how generously he's rewarded Flynn for exhibiting probity, leadership and being forthcoming.
    • That's unsurprising insofar as Mueller once was the FBI's Director. He's doubtlessly looking at the investigation from that vantage point and with a "big picture" strategic eye that sees little value in throwing people in jail when what's really of concern is how badly Russia harmed the US and how ably positioned Russia may be to do so going forward. Even as it's no shock, one must ask oneself why might Mueller have implicitly adopted that stance. I think Mueller'd have more of an prosecute-and-jail focus were he not a principal and were the potential subjects not the most senior members of US government, including the POTUS.

      After all, what appears to have happened is that incoming senior WH/cabinet level US officials were either willfully or unwillfully in-/direct Russian assets. To the extent that is so (if there's a hint that may be so, investigating it is mandatory), the investigation's key aim isn't justifying jailing US citizens, for having compromised top of the US government is far more disconcerting.
    • As the news has heavily emphasized, "substantial assistance" -- read that as "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- may keep one out of jail, despite the gravity of one's crimes. Sure, "substantial assistance" is a "Stewartesque" so to speak, term of art.
  • A major portion of the investigation is 100% unknown to the public. Perspicacity suggests it can be two classes: (1) counterintelligence (CI) or (2) POTUS-related. From where I sit, the CI aspect seems most likely.
    • Lt. Gen. Flynn lied to the FBI about having a conversation he had to have known was being taped.
      • What of that nature might merit lying about? Being compromised by a foreign power and knowing one is seems like the kind of thing one'd lie about if there's more afoot than is evident from a recorded conversation about which one lied, and one thinks investigators may not know of that "bigger" matter.
      • As the incoming NSC head, one's got reason to converse with highly placed officials in foreign governments, including Russia's. Why, then, lie about having done so? I mean, really. Were you, like Flynn, a former Democrat, would you feloniously lie about such a thing, thus risking going to jail merely to save the POTUS some political embarrassment? I wouldn't.
    • Sen. Rubio recently stated in a CNN "New Day" interview that because he sits on the Intel. Cmte., he wouldn't remark on Flynn's sentencing document's content.
    • The signatories to the addendum are prosecutors who specializes in CI and counterterrorism rather than "standard" criminal matters, the latter being the norm for contributions re: non-national security crimes.

      Of all the Russia Inv. stuff we've been hearing in the news, none of it had to do with espionage or terrorism, yet those are the subject matter specialities of the men who most closely managed Flynn's cooperation with the investigation.
    • The Russia investigation began in, what, July 2016 as a CI investigation, not as a "get Trump" investigation.
    • The language of one of the sentencing document's three major threads expressly describes one of matters to which Flynn substantially contributed as "a criminal investigation." If the wholly redacted investigation were also criminal in nature, it'd have been included with the first "criminal investigation contributions section, or, at least, they'd repeat, for the third focus, that Flynn contributed to an investigation of criminal behavior...yet they didn't.
    • The addendum notes the temporal germanity of Flynn's contributions. Timeliness is key to everything involving CI because one must often act quickly to interdict an adversary's undertakings. With any investigation, sooner bests later, but not in the same way as with CI.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is comforting to know that Flynn is helping to put a nail or two into the Trump coffin.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Mueller doesn't have ****....and RAILROADED FLYNN....trying avoid ANOTHER $MIILLION judgement for prosecutorial misconduct....(see Anthrax Debacle) is one possible perspective.
 

Fruityfact

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
1,385
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Mueller doesn't have ****....and RAILROADED FLYNN....trying avoid ANOTHER $MIILLION judgement for prosecutorial misconduct....(see Anthrax Debacle) is one possible perspective.

You need to ask yourself why you're so invested in proclaiming innocence, where there appears not to be. If Obama or his administration did any of this, wouldn't you be up in arms?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,739
Reaction score
5,654
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Mueller doesn't have ****....and RAILROADED FLYNN....trying avoid ANOTHER $MIILLION judgement for prosecutorial misconduct....(see Anthrax Debacle) is one possible perspective.

You missed the indictments and guilty pleas, I take it?
 

Praxas

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
22,399
Reaction score
11,856
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
T
Mueller doesn't have ****....and RAILROADED FLYNN....trying avoid ANOTHER $MIILLION judgement for prosecutorial misconduct....(see Anthrax Debacle) is one possible perspective.

Your comments are perfect demonstration of the desperation that Trump must feel right now as the noose tightens around his proverbial neck. :lamo
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are any of you on about Trump in this thread?

The thread's about the implications of the content in the Flynn sentencing documents and very little there points to Trump. Sure, Flynn was closely associated with Trump, but read the two documents. There's a lot of talk about "foreign agent this and that" and little to none about political factors and objectives. Essentially the report says that Flynn lied about the nature of things he did during the campaign, but that's it.

Flynn was a former three-star general and for a man like that and what he lied about....well, nothing about his doing that makes any sense at all if all that's afoot and giving rise to those lies are federal election law violations. Sure those are serious offenses, but what about them would move Flynn, who hadn't a key campaign management role, to lie about talking to people whom he, as NSC head-to-be, would be well within his "rights" to talk? Nothing.

With regard to the campaign, Flynn was nothing more than a "crowd exciter" -- as a former general he contributes some "cool" and "tough guy" cred; he led some "lock her up" chants; he makes less emotional Republicans feel like there's at least one person in around Trump who's got proper foreign policy and government management/operations experience, etc. With regard to the transition, however, he was a key player and a key conduit to a host of nations.

So, as I asked in my OP, why and about what does a man who served in the military for over 33 years, including five years of combat duty, led the Defense Intelligence Agency, and retired as a 3-star Lieutenant General lie about having had a damn phone conversation that he knew was being recorded?

I don't know, but it strains credulity to think such a man would do so to cover-up an election law violation for which the key principal can't be prosecuted to begin with and whereof the statute of limitations would, unless he's removed from office, run out before the end of the would-be violator's term as POTUS.

There's also the fact that KT McFarland was party to the lie Flynn told and she's not even being prosecuted. That says to me that what's afoot isn't about election law conspiracy but rather about something much more disconcerting. Trump may have a role in it, but I have no way to know that.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,550
Reaction score
7,649
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are any of you on about Trump in this thread?

The thread's about the implications of the content in the Flynn sentencing documents and very little there points to Trump. Sure, Flynn was closely associated with Trump, but read the two documents. There's a lot of talk about "foreign agent this and that" and little to none about political factors and objectives. Essentially the report says that Flynn lied about the nature of things he did during the campaign, but that's it.

Flynn was a former three-star general and for a man like that and what he lied about....well, nothing about his doing that makes any sense at all if all that's afoot and giving rise to those lies are federal election law violations. Sure those are serious offenses, but what about them would move Flynn, who hadn't a key campaign management role, to lie about talking to people whom he, as NSC head-to-be, would be well within his "rights" to talk? Nothing.

With regard to the campaign, Flynn was nothing more than a "crowd exciter" -- as a former general he contributes some "cool" and "tough guy" cred; he led some "lock her up" chants; he makes less emotional Republicans feel like there's at least one person in around Trump who's got proper foreign policy and government management/operations experience, etc. With regard to the transition, however, he was a key player and a key conduit to a host of nations.

So, as I asked in my OP, why and about what does a man who served in the military for over 33 years, including five years of combat duty, led the Defense Intelligence Agency, and retired as a 3-star Lieutenant General lie about having had a damn phone conversation that he knew was being recorded?

I don't know, but it strains credulity to think such a man would do so to cover-up an election law violation for which the key principal can't be prosecuted to begin with and whereof the statute of limitations would, unless he's removed from office, run out before the end of the would-be violator's term as POTUS.

There's also the fact that KT McFarland was party to the lie Flynn told and she's not even being prosecuted. That says to me that what's afoot isn't about election law conspiracy but rather about something much more disconcerting. Trump may have a role in it, but I have no way to know that.

I had decided to categorize the whole Trump gang using Batman villains in a different thread. I decided to hang "Two-face" on Flynn as it seemed most apt.

Flynn goes from a 3 Star General to a Stark Raving with the droll gathering at the corners of his mouth he was so anxious to proclaim his membership in the New Right AND cash in. This guy was so far gone that if somebody told me that in revolt he went entirely off the meds that where keeping him from chewing on his own tail, I would believe it. When you are texting your business partners that "its a go" from the steps of the Inauguration something is more than just a little screwed up in the neither reaches above the shoulders.

So I am happy Flynn appears to have found his way back to his meds or his morals or WHATEVER. Not sure I would ever trust the guy again because that was quite a metamorphosis he went through from 3 star to embarrassing himself with his "lock her up" BS. Whats to say he won't swing back again someday.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I had decided to categorize the whole Trump gang using Batman villains in a different thread. I decided to hang "Two-face" on Flynn as it seemed most apt.

Flynn goes from a 3 Star General to a Stark Raving with the droll gathering at the corners of his mouth he was so anxious to proclaim his membership in the New Right AND cash in. This guy was so far gone that if somebody told me that in revolt he went entirely off the meds that where keeping him from chewing on his own tail, I would believe it. When you are texting your business partners that "its a go" from the steps of the Inauguration something is more than just a little screwed up in the neither reaches above the shoulders.

So I am happy Flynn appears to have found his way back to his meds or his morals or WHATEVER. Not sure I would ever trust the guy again because that was quite a metamorphosis he went through from 3 star to embarrassing himself with his "lock her up" BS. Whats to say he won't swing back again someday.

Red:
Yep.


Blue:
I wouldn't and won't.

He can say whatever he wants going forward, but 95% of what he says that can't be corroborated will hold no water with me.


Pink:
Nothing that comes to mind.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I had decided to categorize the whole Trump gang using Batman villains in a different thread. I decided to hang "Two-face" on Flynn as it seemed most apt.

Flynn goes from a 3 Star General to a Stark Raving with the droll gathering at the corners of his mouth he was so anxious to proclaim his membership in the New Right AND cash in. This guy was so far gone that if somebody told me that in revolt he went entirely off the meds that where keeping him from chewing on his own tail, I would believe it. When you are texting your business partners that "its a go" from the steps of the Inauguration something is more than just a little screwed up in the neither reaches above the shoulders.

So I am happy Flynn appears to have found his way back to his meds or his morals or WHATEVER. Not sure I would ever trust the guy again because that was quite a metamorphosis he went through from 3 star to embarrassing himself with his "lock her up" BS. Whats to say he won't swing back again someday.

I worked for him when he was that 3-Star. He has always been like that.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,172
Reaction score
34,190
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I worked for him when he was that 3-Star. He has always been like that.

I wasn't there, but I know a few folks who worked for him when he was a Colonel.

Their basic assessment was: Flynn was an incredibly bright guy who had 10 new ideas a day.... 3 of which were good. He needed McChrystal to filter out that other 7. Once he no longer had McChrystal....."
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Oh, my....

I wasn't there, but I know a few folks who worked for him when he was a Colonel.

Their basic assessment was: Flynn was an incredibly bright guy who had 10 new ideas a day.... 3 of which were good. He needed McChrystal to filter out that other 7. Once he no longer had McChrystal....."

Yeah, I agree with that assessment. His personality is actually a lot like Trump’s, only Flynn is more intelligent. Here is a post I made 2 years ago when we first heard he would be the NSA.

I worked for LTG Flynn during his tenure as Director of DIA. He is a smart guy and knows his stuff but I am not optimistic about him and Trump together. Flynn has a mediocre work ethic. Since Trump hasn't been attending his security briefings I know some are hoping the people he surrounds himself with will keep him up to speed with what is most important. Flynn is the type of person to blow those things off as well. I personally had to lie on LTG Flynn's behalf one time to an Ambassador because he wanted to go watch the new Superman movie instead of attending a scheduled meeting with the Ambassador. Maybe I shouldn't have said that but we are both retired from the Army now.

Now, nothing bad happened because of that. It wasn't a matter of national security. We all mostly just thought it was funny at the time. I remember the Colonel saying, "Seriously? He is watching Superman: Man of Steel right now?" But it is typical of the disregard he has for the more tedious parts of the job. The types of things he is going to have to stay on top of because it doesn't look like Trump will. Maybe he will do better since he won't be the boss and will be answering directly to Trump. All I know is at DIA, when Flynn was the boss, it was a cluster ****. But to be fair, it was a cluster **** my entire 15 years at DIA so take that for what it is worth.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...37-flynn-basically-nuts-2.html#post1066642335
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, I agree with that assessment. His personality is actually a lot like Trump’s, only Flynn is more intelligent. Here is a post I made 2 years ago when we first heard he would be the NSA.

I worked for LTG Flynn during his tenure as Director of DIA. He is a smart guy and knows his stuff but I am not optimistic about him and Trump together. Flynn has a mediocre work ethic. Since Trump hasn't been attending his security briefings I know some are hoping the people he surrounds himself with will keep him up to speed with what is most important. Flynn is the type of person to blow those things off as well. I personally had to lie on LTG Flynn's behalf one time to an Ambassador because he wanted to go watch the new Superman movie instead of attending a scheduled meeting with the Ambassador. Maybe I shouldn't have said that but we are both retired from the Army now.

Now, nothing bad happened because of that. It wasn't a matter of national security. We all mostly just thought it was funny at the time. I remember the Colonel saying, "Seriously? He is watching Superman: Man of Steel right now?" But it is typical of the disregard he has for the more tedious parts of the job. The types of things he is going to have to stay on top of because it doesn't look like Trump will. Maybe he will do better since he won't be the boss and will be answering directly to Trump. All I know is at DIA, when Flynn was the boss, it was a cluster ****. But to be fair, it was a cluster **** my entire 15 years at DIA so take that for what it is worth.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...37-flynn-basically-nuts-2.html#post1066642335

Blue:
The job from which I retired, albeit in from a global management consulting firm, was similar to what I suspect a two or three star general's is: akin to an EVP in a "front of the house" capacity. For principals at that level, judgment and character are among the most important of one's qualities, so I haven't something to say about his exercise of it to take his kid to a movie. In that rarefied air, one's presumed to know when one can skip a meeting and when one cannot, regardless of what someone else, most especially one's staff, thinks of one's doing so.

I'm sure that a partner or two to whom I delegated something like attending a meeting or making a presentation in my stead thought I was being lax. Fortunately, they had better sense than to say so and they rose to the occasions and did a fine job. I had my reasons, and, yes, on occasion, the reason was so I could do something with my kid(s).

That wasn't a work-ethic thing. It was a "my kids are more important than is the firm" thing. And, if I'm honest, having the discretionary ability to thus set and live by that prioritization is one of the perqs of having senior level positions. That's as it should be because one of the "downsides" is that one typically works somehow for some share of six, if not seven, days a week, even on vacations. (I scare quoted "downside" only because some people enjoy their jobs enough that it didn't seem like work. If I could have done my job without the responsibility, which, of course, is impossible, I wouldn't have retired.)

As go your "red" assessments of Flynn, for obvious reasons, I'm fine with taking your word for them.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Blue:
The job from which I retired, albeit in from a global management consulting firm, was similar to what I suspect a two or three star general's is: akin to an EVP in a "front of the house" capacity. For principals at that level, judgment and character are among the most important of one's qualities, so I haven't something to say about his exercise of it to take his kid to a movie. In that rarefied air, one's presumed to know when one can skip a meeting and when one cannot, regardless of what someone else, most especially one's staff, thinks of one's doing so.

I'm sure that a partner or two to whom I delegated something like attending a meeting or making a presentation in my stead thought I was being lax. Fortunately, they had better sense than to say so and they rose to the occasions and did a fine job. I had my reasons, and, yes, on occasion, the reason was so I could do something with my kid(s).

That wasn't a work-ethic thing. It was a "my kids are more important than is the firm" thing. And, if I'm honest, having the discretionary ability to thus set and live by that prioritization is one of the perqs of having senior level positions. That's as it should be because one of the "downsides" is that one typically works somehow for some share of six, if not seven, days a week, even on vacations. (I scare quoted "downside" only because some people enjoy their jobs enough that it didn't seem like work. If I could have done my job without the responsibility, which, of course, is impossible, I wouldn't have retired.)

As go your "red" assessments of Flynn, for obvious reasons, I'm fine with taking your word for them.

Heh, it would be cute if he had skipped out on the Ambassador to go to a movie with his kid. It would be sweet in a rebel kind of way. But this was on an overseas visit (I don’t want to say which country). Official delegation only. No family. :)
 

Parrish

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
12,542
Reaction score
5,248
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oh, my, guys. But just think about what we wouldn't know about 45 had he not heeded Obama's advice and warning to not appoint Flynn.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
7,781
Reaction score
2,827
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I worked for him when he was that 3-Star. He has always been like that.

I believe you. One does not have support the Mueller investigation to see something off in the guy, if only based on a bit of background research. First, I noticed an incident in Iraq (I think) wherein he refused to assist another service in a firefight because they weren't his team...if true, pretty darn sick.

Then I noticed he has a history of ignoring solid advice, almost stubbornly. He refused to vet with the Pentagon his dealings with Russians and (I believe) openly refused to register as a foreign agent. It wasn't an oversight, he was taking a stand on something (only God knows what).
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, my, guys. But just think about what we wouldn't know about 45 had he not heeded Obama's advice and warning to not appoint Flynn.

You of the "blessing in disguise." LOL

In my experience, the principal nature of blessings in disguise is baneful not beneficent, which is why they're disguised.
 
Last edited:

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
7,781
Reaction score
2,827
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In regards to the OP, an interesting analysis by Greg Jarrett somewhat parallels it.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mue...-trump-flynn-sentencing-memo-is-a-big-nothing

But it appears that Flynn offered prosecutors assistance in two areas.

First, Flynn contributed something to an unidentified criminal case that is not being handled by the special counsel and, thus, not directly collusion-related.

Second, Flynn seems to have answered candid questions about the Trump transition team's conversations with foreign governments after the presidential election in 2016 and before Inauguration Day. Again, this would not be relevant to "collusion" to win the election because the election was already over.
The documents filed in court Tuesday make a passing reference to the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with foreign governments. But no one has ever been convicted under the act, passed in 1799. Lawyers, judges, and constitutional scholars regard the law as unconstitutional.


Nevertheless, this long dormant law does not apply to members of presidential transition teams who are acting not as private citizens, but as incoming government representatives of the person about to assume the presidency. They would therefore be constitutionally authorized to conduct foreign affairs.



There are other reasons to believe that Flynn’s "substantial assistance" to the Mueller investigation had nothing to do with "collusion" with the Russians. He was never charged with the underlying crime, whatever that is. Moreover, since Mueller is moving ahead with sentencing, he will not be using Flynn as a witness. This indicates that Flynn has nothing of significance that would be useful in any potential prosecution.


Interesting.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In regards to the OP, an interesting analysis by Greg Jarrett somewhat parallels it.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mue...-trump-flynn-sentencing-memo-is-a-big-nothing

Interesting.

I appreciate your sharing Jarrett's thoughts, but he's got a line flowing through the excerpt you shared: no collusion. I happen to think there's a counterintelligence thing afoot, and that necessarily means some sort of collusion is going on; the question is whether conspiracy is going on.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but Trump has only ever said there was no collusion, yet there's no way didn't collude with Russians, and as of last Friday, we know so. Neither Trump nor his attorneys, all of whom know conspiracy is the legal standard of proof, and AFAIK, none of them have asserted there was no criminal conspiracy afoot.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
7,781
Reaction score
2,827
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I appreciate your sharing Jarrett's thoughts, but he's got a line flowing through the excerpt you shared: no collusion. I happen to think there's a counterintelligence thing afoot, and that necessarily means some sort of collusion is going on; the question is whether conspiracy is going on.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but Trump has only ever said there was no collusion, yet there's no way didn't collude with Russians, and as of last Friday, we know so. Neither Trump nor his attorneys, all of whom know conspiracy is the legal standard of proof, and AFAIK, none of them have asserted there was no criminal conspiracy afoot.

The post, of course, was to note the similarity of what the document does, or does not, seem to support as to Flynn's significance, not Jarrett's talking point of no collusion. And yes, I did notice it, so my extracts intentionally avoided his discursive speculations on its meaning to Russian collusion.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,550
Reaction score
7,649
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In bold is a Gen. McCaffrey retweet of a David Ignatius tweet with a small add of his own at the end claiming Flynn as "A superb Combat Intel Officer"

Barry R McCaffrey
@mccaffreyr3
Barry R McCaffrey Retweeted David Ignatius
Such wisdom by David Ignatius is expected with his take on LTG Mike Flynn. He totally went off the rails. Fury at being fired by Obama team. Target fixation on terror threat. Too much time in the dark world. A superb combat intel officer.Barry R McCaffrey added,


Maybe that really does explain it. McCaffrey and Ignatius paint Flynn as well suited to the role of a Combat Intel Officer that simply could not make the transition to a civilian role at the head of the large Defense Intelligence Agency in the Obama Admin. There, at DIA, Flynn apparently chased too many terrorist operations down the rabbit hole insistent that they all had their genesis in Iran. Apparently he simply was so fixated on that one aspect of what he saw as his mission, persistent in proving Iran's terrorist culpability that nothing outside that narrow tunnel was visible to him. Ultimately both superiors and subordinates just had enough and Flynn was bounced out of his job.

Now that must have really irked Flynn who I am guessing had mapped out a future cushy consultancy after his Defense Intelligence post. Seeing that plan blown to smithereens and sure that he had been unfairly judged, Flynn threw his resulting rage at all things Obama directly at Hillary's Presidential Campaign while at the same time falling in with the ultimate self absorbed, albeit often unsuccessful personal wealth generation enterprise, Donald Trump.

I put the chances that Trump did not know Flynn was talking to Kislyak about Sanctions relief during the Transition at about zero and I also rate this whole story of Flynn being fired for lying to Pence about it as a Fig Leaf designed by Flynn and Trump such that Flynn would fall on his sword leaving his post as National Security Advisor, both men hoping that would be the end of it. I believe THAT is why Trump wanted Comey to "go easy" on Flynn as the whole story of Flynn lying to Pence was just that......a story concocted by Trump and Flynn with Pence either used as a witting or unwitting participant in what was in fact a cover story, each of Trump and Flynn with his own personal financial interests fully involved in a scheme of trading US Gov Sanctions relief for Putin's help pursuing those personal financial interests and doing it while the government was still in the hands of the Obama Admin.

If all that is true Mueller knows it and has known it for over a year. Suddenly all of that redacted material in the Flynn sentencing document becomes much more interesting even just as it relates to one of the three cases identified in that sentencing document. Suddenly it becomes obvious why Mueller has had his teeth sunk into the ankle of the Trump Campaign and Admin and won't let go.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The post, of course, was to note the similarity of what the document does, or does not, seem to support as to Flynn's significance, not Jarrett's talking point of no collusion. And yes, I did notice it, so my extracts intentionally avoided his discursive speculations on its meaning to Russian collusion.

Fair enough.

Where Jarrett and I more or less concur, yes, we do. LOL
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In bold is a Gen. McCaffrey retweet of a David Ignatius tweet with a small add of his own at the end claiming Flynn as "A superb Combat Intel Officer"

Barry R McCaffrey
@mccaffreyr3
Barry R McCaffrey Retweeted David Ignatius
Such wisdom by David Ignatius is expected with his take on LTG Mike Flynn. He totally went off the rails. Fury at being fired by Obama team. Target fixation on terror threat. Too much time in the dark world. A superb combat intel officer.Barry R McCaffrey added,


Maybe that really does explain it. McCaffrey and Ignatius paint Flynn as well suited to the role of a Combat Intel Officer that simply could not make the transition to a civilian role at the head of the large Defense Intelligence Agency in the Obama Admin. There, at DIA, Flynn apparently chased too many terrorist operations down the rabbit hole insistent that they all had their genesis in Iran. Apparently he simply was so fixated on that one aspect of what he saw as his mission, persistent in proving Iran's terrorist culpability that nothing outside that narrow tunnel was visible to him. Ultimately both superiors and subordinates just had enough and Flynn was bounced out of his job.

Now that must have really irked Flynn who I am guessing had mapped out a future cushy consultancy after his Defense Intelligence post. Seeing that plan blown to smithereens and sure that he had been unfairly judged, Flynn threw his resulting rage at all things Obama directly at Hillary's Presidential Campaign while at the same time falling in with the ultimate self absorbed, albeit often unsuccessful personal wealth generation enterprise, Donald Trump.

I put the chances that Trump did not know Flynn was talking to Kislyak about Sanctions relief during the Transition at about zero and I also rate this whole story of Flynn being fired for lying to Pence about it as a Fig Leaf designed by Flynn and Trump such that Flynn would fall on his sword leaving his post as National Security Advisor, both men hoping that would be the end of it. I believe THAT is why Trump wanted Comey to "go easy" on Flynn as the whole story of Flynn lying to Pence was just that......a story concocted by Trump and Flynn with Pence either used as a witting or unwitting participant in what was in fact a cover story, each of Trump and Flynn with his own personal financial interests fully involved in a scheme of trading US Gov Sanctions relief for Putin's help pursuing those personal financial interests and doing it while the government was still in the hands of the Obama Admin.

If all that is true Mueller knows it and has known it for over a year. Suddenly all of that redacted material in the Flynn sentencing document becomes much more interesting even just as it relates to one of the three cases identified in that sentencing document. Suddenly it becomes obvious why Mueller has had his teeth sunk into the ankle of the Trump Campaign and Admin and won't let go.
What you've outlined above is basically a classic "tragic flaw" story of hubris. Okay. Such is concomitant with human nature; thus of them folks will ask "what's going on with him," but as they dispassionately reflect on the matter, most will be able to sympathize or empathize with, or at least simply understand, the protagonist. The way Flynn/Trump publicly handled the matter is, for now, totally befuddling.

Red + Teal:
Well, that's plausible. Assuming it's more or less what happened, it doesn't, in the abstract, strain credulity as does the absurd lines we've been given by the Trump Admin.


Teal:
That too is plausible and understandable. Flynn wouldn't be the first person who, though highly capable, rose above the level of his "incompetence," as we say. Lots of folks are outstanding at "this, that and the other," yet they're ill suited to whatever be "the next step" in the career progression they've chosen. When the "next step" is director of an entire organization like the DIA, there's no shame in not being well suited to the role of running it. Indeed few people are suited for roles like that, but that one isn't doesn't make one incompetent.

Why did it take three weeks for Trump to act and proffer the "fig leaf" you've described? Simple sympathy for another isn't not that complex a "leaf." Just lay out the details and be done. No biggie.


Tan:
Plausible. At least "it fits" and doesn't require one willingly suspend disbelief in order to accept this line's verity.


Pink:
Yes. As I read the Flynn sentencing document and tried to make heads and tails of it and its implications, I kept thinking we're seeing the plot of a spy novel play out before us.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
7,781
Reaction score
2,827
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I appreciate your sharing Jarrett's thoughts, but he's got a line flowing through the excerpt you shared: no collusion. I happen to think there's a counterintelligence thing afoot, and that necessarily means some sort of collusion is going on; the question is whether conspiracy is going on.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but Trump has only ever said there was no collusion, yet there's no way didn't collude with Russians, and as of last Friday, we know so. Neither Trump nor his attorneys, all of whom know conspiracy is the legal standard of proof, and AFAIK, none of them have asserted there was no criminal conspiracy afoot.

After giving it further thought, I am curious. I have not kept up on this but I take the issue to have been over Russian interference in the US elections, and whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with them illegally (i.e. a conspiracy). As of last Friday, we know that to be true?

And, given that collusion is a necessary precondition to conspiracy (how else to conspire?) I don't think it significant that Trump and his attorneys claim that he didn't even collude...which, by the way, has been the initial basis of the partisan's dispute on both sides.
 
Top Bottom